Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Power v. Force
The tension between power and force is great and often misunderstood. Much of the problem here is the western world's-or at least its current leader's-understanding of the differences between power and force. And when it comes to which of these two dynamics will win in the long-term, power will eat force for lunch.
Power is about influence, persuasion, example, compassion, civility, modeling, pacifism, peacefulness, humility, and is intrinsic by nature; it is a ‘pull' action.
Force is about bullying, brashness, greed, militarism, war, arrogance, hubris, brutishness, and is extrinsic by nature; it is a ‘push' action. Today, apparently, people who revere force are leading America.
Gandhi, M. L. King, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Reinhold Niehbuhr, and Jesus exemplify power. Its essence is in ideas rather than things, and it is transmitted through words, serenity, calmness, and trust. Use of this model generates eager followers rather than reluctant servants.
King George III, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, bin Ladin, Saddam, Caesar, Herod, and, some would argue to an increasing extent the current US and British leadership, exemplify force. It is transmitted through fear, intimidation, coercion, dishonesty, and violence. It generates obedience and subservience rather than voluntary and enthusiastic acceptance.
The world has had its share of force, but force has never sustained a society in the way that power has. Martin Luther King captured the concept with the following: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." It will always take the power of some new and more reasoned influence to rectify the damage done by the wrong-headedness of using force.
A friend has offered that today, "We have at work a strange version of the force/power distinction that operates as if force is the measure of power. Those holding this belief think that a bigger force will inevitably win, and they dread that others will conquer them if they don't achieve total domination first. The only thing that can be won in such a paradigm is more control. And to maintain such control requires an ever-increasing ruthlessness and creates a world that responds only to force - a world that is driven by extrinsic reward or consequences rather than by an intrinsic sense of hope and of true community." A study of history-Rome, Hitler, Napoleon, on and on, take your pick-shows that force is always trumped and is never sustainable in the long term.
A tweaking of this power vs. force discussion might well lead to what Reinhold Niebuhr would have referenced as "power and humility." This comment about Reinhold Niebuhr recently came to my attention, "Niebuhr understood that the exercise of power can be shocking and, at times, corrupting. But he also understood that power is absolutely necessary to fight the battles that must be fought. The trick is to fight these battles with humility and constant introspection, knowing that there is no monopoly on virtue. Moreover, this combination is simply more effective. For power untethered from humility is certain to eventually fail."
And in the wake of World War II, Niebuhr warned us "we are so deluded by the concept of our innocence that we are ill-prepared to deal with the temptations of power which now assail us." I can't think of a better bit of advice to those that today control our government.
Finally, Niebuhr wrote, "If we should perish, the ruthlessness of the foe would be only the secondary cause of the disaster. The primary cause would be that the strength of a giant nation was directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards of the struggle; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory." Or quoting an old adage, "Hubris is terminal."
Undoubtedly we must guide our nation to the use of power as here defined and to avoiding a reliance on force. Ultimately, particularly in the long term, all models based upon force will fail. But quite unfortunately, the failure of these models falls upon the children of the perpetrators rather than upon them. This means that it is most often the shortsighted and selfish - those lacking "humility" - who most rely on force to settle their grievances and frustrations or to satisfy their greed. As our President prepares to suggest our future in Afghanistan, it seemed appropriate to reflect on this lesson from history.
30 Comments so far
Show AllBarcley has good intensions, but
"we" don't guide this nation.
And, why does he use the qualifier "apparently" concerning
the u.s.'s use of force. Could it not be more obvious?
"Gandhi, M. L. King, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Reinhold Niehbuhr, and Jesus exemplify power. Its essence is in ideas rather than things, and it is transmitted through words, serenity, calmness, and trust. Use of this model generates eager followers rather than reluctant servants."
I would add the distinction between pride and dignity.
Pride is 'self' relative to the whole, dignity is 'all' relative to the whole.
Niebuhr was the philosopher of the Cold War. He was contemptible. Those who refer to him in a positive way reveal their essential wrong-headedness. This writer does so in other ways as well.
Apologies for entering this discussion at such a late date....but, help me out here, if you would. How was Niebuhr contemptible and a philosopher of the cold war? Many years ago I studied some of his writings and thought he was one of the good guys.
Thanks for your help.
There is a lot of truth in this article that will be interpreted according to the degree at which one identifies with undefinable internal truth as opposed to ones personal story. The comments on this article will most likely become a semantical joust or agreement, neither of which will expose the writers attempt at expressing his interior truth. My hope is to read a comment that transmits a wave of truth that exposes beauty and grace.
Israeli Researchers Find ‘Altruism Gene’
More news stories on Science and Genetics
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 20
The first gene linked to altruistic behavior has been identified by Israeli psychologists who believe it boosts receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine, which gives the brain a good feeling.
The discovery of the gene variant on chromosome No. 11 is reported in the advance on-line edition of the journal Molecular Psychiatry (nature.com/mp) by Prof. Richard Ebstein, a psychologist, and colleagues at the Hebrew University and Herzog Memorial Hospital in Jerusalem. The “scientific correspondence” will appear in the printed journal in a month or so.
Ebstein, who headed a team that in the 1990s discovered a “risk-taking gene,” told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that the source of altruism—in which someone sacrifices his own interests to benefit others—has been an important question in evolutionary theory for many years.
Even Charles Darwin dealt with it, he said. One would not expect altruism to have an evolutionary benefit because the altruistic person promotes other people’s survival by taking risks that could endanger his own. Ebstein discussed the matter with his students in an evolutionary psychology course and then launched the genetic study.
Higher animals can show altruistic behavior, said Ebstein, but it is almost always for members of their family, whom they identify by odors and other signals. But altruistic behavior is very prominent in human behavior.
Ebstein and colleagues took blood samples from 354 families with multiple siblings and asked them questions to rate them on the Selflessness Scale, a measure of altruistic behavior. Their answers were completely anonymous, thus they did not benefit from describing themselves. “Depending on self-reporting could present some problems, but we are working to confirm our findings by conducting economic games with reward and punishment to see if people display altruistic behavior and then to test them for the gene variant.”
He is also considering the possibility of looking for the gene in groups of people who clearly exhibit altruistic behavior, such as Yad Sarah, Magen David Adom or Zaka (Disaster Victims Identification) volunteers.
Ebstein said about two-thirds of the random sample carry the altruism gene. Interestingly, the risk-taking gene, which is linked to a tendency for taking drugs, smoking and other dangerous behavior, is a different—or opposite—variant of the altruism gene. Instead of promoting dopamine expression, the risk-taking gene variant reduces it.
“This may mean that people who don’t get enough dopamine in their brains seek out drugs or other such means to get a ‘high,’” Ebstein suggested. “Dopamine probably plays a key role in pro-social behavior. People with the altruism gene may do good works because they get more of a thrill out of their good works.”
Ebstein is certain that this is only the first altruism gene, and that several others exist. “I think genes have only half of the influence on altruistic behavior, with the rest involving environmental factors, such as education.”
In this study, said Ebstein, “we did not fine this altruism gene more common in women than in men,” despite their roles as caregivers and their prominence in caregiving professions.
Anorexic women score high on the Selflessness Scale. “They may take altruism to an extreme, eating minimally to ‘sacrifice’ food for other people.”
Religiously observant people tend to score higher on the scale, he continued, apparently due to the value put on altruism and doing good deeds in religious education and religion itself.
Original article
(Posted on January 2
"The first gene linked to altruistic behavior has been identified "
TPTB are frantically looking for a "cure".
I believe this author is inspired but wrong.
His saying that force is stronger than power does not make it so.
He sets up Rome as an example of the intrinsically temporary nature of systems based on force.
Nonsense! The Roman system represented the most organized level of "force" up to its time. It rolled over less forceful cultures and lasted for many centuries. Hardly a short-timer by human standards.
The author sidesteps the essential question challenging anti-militarists: How does a non-militaristic culture resist a militarized one without becoming militarized itself?
"Power" alone is unable to defeat "force" or even successfully defend itself from "force", particularly when that force is unhindered by moral considerations.
My hope is that the emergence of decentarlized technology and the emerging information age will provide a humane way to peacefully and SUCCESSFULLY resist militarism in the future.
First paragraph, "power eats force for lunch." Are we reading the same essay?
But I see your point. Something as brutal as military force seems imposible to oppose with non-military means. Yet finding ways to opt out of this corporate nightmare might be just the ticket - like printing our own money locally.
Colonial force wiped out much of the indigenous in the Americas. Israel's force (acccompanied by US support) seems to be working for Israel in Palestine as the settlements are expanded year after year.
Humility is a function of honesty. It takes courage and strength if not conviction to be honest. The difference between power and force might be the difference between strength and weakness, between honesty and dishonesty. It comes down to individual choice. I wish we'd get to know ourselves, take responsibility. One definition of wisdom is the contemplation of consequences before making a choice.
The Roman Empire lasted (I believe) eight centuries. The Ottoman Empire lasted seven. That tells you something about force.
Old Goat & Buck
Your nitpicking underwhelms me.
Just follow Barkley's pointer to Niehbuhr's very critical statements. My father pointed out the same facts - just not so eloquently.
We ignore Niehbuhr's warnings at our peril. We may be beyond the point of no return - so at least we may understand the inevitable consequences of our unmitigated greed fueled by our unparalled use of force (instead of power).
Just think of the unintended legacy we have left for or children!!
But I could be wrong !
I don't think it was nit picking. One wouldn't say, "Apparently, the u.s. destroyed two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons." It is wishy washy, casts a vague shadow over an absolute.
Same with the inference that we (the people) guide policy. Nothing could be farther from the reality of the new america.
Inasmuch as power uses force (else how do we know it's there?), I see little peaceful or positive about it except as 'potential' for good.
Personal power is how I vote, how I speak, how I spend my little income, how I choose to act and live. On a larger scale, we willingly cede some of our personal power to government for taxation, police, education, public health, and hundreds of other common societal causes. The failure to accept and exercise the balance of our personal power will simply allow others to seize and utilize it. Of course we must continually monitor the powers we have ceded, too.
I would say power is the ability to make choices, even if there do not appear to be any choices.
Did you know that reincarnation was part of the gospel? It was taken out by leaders of the early church. My point is, if we knew that we were immortal, that this was but one life of many, it would give us a very different perspective, don't you think? Also, we who are against militarism, must be prepared to put our lives on the line for our principles. Fearless, civil disobedience. Instead of waiting around for a hero to save us, we each must become our own hero, and then we will be a nation of heroes. Think of a million people on the mall in D.C. Congress is the place where we can make a difference, they are weak, and they are scared to death of the people. All we need to do is organize.
If power were so saintly as the author makes out, then Lord Acton would have never said "Power corrupts (or tend to corrupt) and, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
But on other matters, Arch Bishop Tutu and likely now the Arch Bishop of Canterbury deserve to be put in the saintly category, but not the Dalai Lama, as he actually did abuse power in the past. In point of fact, China not he was on the good guys side in Tibet. His side had young women forced in prostitution and others plain out forced into slavery and China put a stop to that.
Also Reinhold Neihbur never was a Martin Luther King Jr. Dr King was head and shoulders above that knee jerk anti Communist.
AD
If power were so saintly as the author makes out, then Lord Acton would have never said "Power corrupts (or tend to corrupt) and, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
But on other matters, Arch Bishop Tutu and likely now the Arch Bishop of Canterbury deserve to be put in the saintly category, but not the Dalai Lama, as he actually did abuse power in the past. In point of fact, China not he was on the good guys side in Tibet. His side had young women forced in prostitution and others plain out forced into slavery and China put a stop to that.
Also Reinhold Neihbur never was a Martin Luther King Jr. Dr King was head and shoulders above that knee jerk anti Communist.
AD
Acton should have said authority. He misused the word power but then if we were to eradicate any word misused then we would have nothing, because very word in the English language has been misused. Fact is Barkley makes a sound point with words well used and more pertinently so because others have misused them.
I am interested by your Neihbur info. I am uncomfortable with his analysis as per the quotes in the article.
Well said about the Dalai Lama. Interesting how many in the west support him. I have long said it is an indication of both the depravity and the ignorance of western people. Shame. Still gives me the shivers: I mean despite being an African that my language is English makes me wonder; What is the matter with my culture?
But likewise, the Arch is too distant to be certain about. Institutionally, socially and nationally I am probably much closer to him than you and feel the best that can be said is he is not a bad man. I hope people can say that about me and feel he probably thinks the same way.
We do not need another false dichotomy.
However well intentioned the author may be, this article is contaminated by the delusional defining of power as "compassion, civility, modeling, pacifism, peacefulness,humility,..."
Certainly, if you have power then you may exercise these forms of behavior.
Power is just as likely to be manifest THROUGH force as any of these other behaviors.
This attempt to separate words from meanings is like climbing out on a limb of a tree to brush your teeth because you know that squirrels have strong teeth.
If you must have a dichotomy (and I think THAT is inherently foolish), maybe try substituting honorableness, integrity, honesty, conscientiousness, or reasonableness for the word "power".
And what did Gandhi, Jesus & MLK have in common? They were all removed by force, and from all evidence, were largely defeated in their pacific aspirations.
Mostly true. Power and force are as defined. Barkley undoubtedly has a point: back to basics of the word. The psycho babble passing as debate in the USA has long been sharply embarrassing.
I am not sure the bits about 'temptations of power' are relevant. This muddies the water and as such hides the real problem.
The old problem is that the forceful always insist they are powerful, for by definition they cannot admit to force. POTUS claims to be in 'power' even as he manipulates the economy and the law to make Americans live the absurdity of 'War is Peace' (by whatever name); even as he makes illegal war that kills, maims and destroys the reputation of obedient Americans; even as he makes Americans into murderers of innocents at a rate that is eye popping; even as he kills just for the sake of killing, whatever else he calls it.
POTUS is in reality a psychopath.
Nevertheless, as Barkley points out, the present state of affairs must be ascribed to bad language. Bad language burgeons with distance. American leaders are kept distant from their people by the size of America. They live somewhere in a massive froth of bubbles generated by lobbyists.
Americans must know their leaders and be able to compare them with and have them criticised by others near at hand. The USA needs to separated into distinct streams so Americans' can distinguish force from power in the heat of battles fought by people they know, right on their doorsteps.
The democratic process in the USA is now an absurdity of prejudice. It has made a psychopath out of Obama who is an otherwise decent man.
All simply put I suppose by the two statements: Down with the USA! Up with Americans!
"power will eat force for lunch."
from what I've observed, it will be a midnight supper.
It is insightful analysis and discussion like this that has me changing my home page from HuffingtonPost to ComomonDreams. I choose to start my day with CommonDreams.
It is insightful analysis and discussion like this that has me changing my home page from HuffingtonPost to ComomonDreams. I choose to start my day with CommonDreams.
Like his predecessor, Obama is just another thug with power. All his supposed intelligence is not making any difference in his policies. Bush would have gutted single payer, extended the Patriot Act, continued Guantanamo, and slapped unfair sanctions on Iran. Obama is as dumb as Bush--just a bit slower.
vdb, Saint-Just, Birdbrain, Mordecai, dreamjoehill, I take exception -
The longevity of the Roman Empire does not represent a victory of force over power as Barkley describes these, but greater force and power over lesser force and power.
Part of the "organization of force" that Hill mentions above was the Roman willingness to go beyond previous conquerors in allowing locals to administrate conquered districts. This generated power and economized force.
Moreover, Roman factions used force against each other often, and came and went with the seductions and betrayals of force - basically, when another force became momentarily greater.
Were Barkley to work out how the dichotomy that Birdbrain objects to articulates, he might answer all the above objections, or at least push them to another level of dialog.
Barkley does not mention and may not realize that his Heaven and Hell are married. But their relations are asymmetrical.
All force derives directly or indirectly from power (as per B's descriptions here). Some force derives from force, as in "If you don't go to war, you'll go to jail." But the capacity to use that force ultimately depends on the assumption of right, mutual benefit, or some similar arrangement among the populace.
Some power derives from force, but some does not.
Force thereby consumes and expends itself in ways that power does not. It must sustain itself from power that need not and at times cannot sustain itself by force. Ultimately, one requires power to sustain force, and a prime reason these forcible entities continue is that they do not altogether lack power, and their oppositions do not altogether have it.
..
If all this seems strained and artificial, let me pass on another CD'er's recommendation: Gene Sharp's POLITICS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION takes three volumes to document and analyse the successes of nonviolence over violence.
These are extensive, and form a critical part of almost everything that any of us would likely call a social advance - even when violence or other factors are involved.
Sharp does not claim that the race never goes to the swift nor the battle to the strong. His argument deserves a longer argument than I can give.
If your opposition has greater force than you, and you recognize the tactical folly of directly meeting greater force with lesser force in most situations, you might find Gene Sharp's ideas of use (and those who have encountered them, I would be interested in knowing your objections, since I find him grounded, practical, and at times surprising).
... {
& PS to Sioux Rose: Under whatever stars ye be, a cry from the uninitiated:
-- Just how *do* Mars and Venus get along in all this? You and Barkley and Sharp write of a single unsevered dichotomy in several ways, or I am much mistaken. How do you see this marriage of Heaven and Hell?
}
Sioux Rose
BARDAMU: Your question is the stuff that merits an entire thesis, however the simplified "answer" is best taken from the symbol for Yin and Yang. Note each is more or less present inside the other. Every person committed to power through humility and decency and GENUINE concern for the betterment of the human race fights the dark demons of typical human emotions like fear, jealousy, anger, and despair. Although left to atrophy, those who identify with force (and this brings to mind the AWFUL images taken from the article about the birth defects emerging from the holy war/killing fields of Iraq) probably own latent positive traits like compassion and sensitivity. These going painfully unused!
I do not believe we all enter this world as empty slates. I see it more like the acorn or any seed that already in its small form contains the entire blueprint for its prospective growth. The astrological blueprint shows if an individual has specific aptitudes while it also reveals the weaknesses they have incarnated to work on. The elements of family life and even some aspects of the cultural nexus they are born into also show in the birth chart.
Every soul has the capacity to overcome some of this blueprint, but it takes enormous taming of the self. Yogananda spoke of this in his "Autobiography of a Yogi," and it is also alluded to in one of my all-time favorite films, "My Dinner with Andre."
There is a gap between what is latent and what becomes actualized in every human being, and in those who would tend to gravitate to "The dark side" whereby they'd show callous disregard for others, still, the glimmer of possible catharsis or some form of epiphany always exists. That might represent the mystical interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son.
I am on my son-in-law's computer the kids are racing around... so this is the best I can do in the way of response at this time. Thank you for inviting my participation in this discussion. It is one, by topic, that will never go out of style so long as the human being retains a spiritual trajectory etched in the spilled blood of its ancestral past.
Well then, here's to kids and grandkids and happy holidays, Sioux. I shall consider this, and soon we shall find occasion.
Meanwhile, without refining the point, here's to concern growing from despair, and yin and yang beyond clove and cinnamon - and allspice!
A recent commentary I read about the tension between "Guns" vs "Butter" as a dominant ethic comes to mind. The "butter" bunch, which is most of us, think cooperation and sharing are good things, local and world. We know we need to learn to live together, or we collectively die. The "guns" bunch has the toys, and is most interested in dominance; "too bad, so sad" for the weak. We "butter" folks have the numbers, overwhelmingly, but allow ourselves to be dominated by an aggressive minority, even if they aren't waving the guns in our faces. We can't change the prevailing dynamic in the U.S. and world simply by philosophic discussions of what words mean (though that's important too, and I applaud Bob Barkley for beginning this conversation). We need to be out "on the court" in that messy world which is friends, family, etc. Otherwise, all we have are these words on a screen.